Does the type of soldier matter

[Fencing Frog]

Looking at the stat line there is a difference between thief and a Thug but not much.  does the Thief have any special abilities? What is the value of a Treasure hunter?  or a Tracker? 

I don't see a reason (other than flavor) to take anything but the toughest, best armored soldiers you can afford.  The only the Apothecary seem to stand out as having any special use beyond combat power

[Calmdown]

There is a lot more variation between soldiers than their very small stat differences would suggest. I wrote an article on just that!

http://www.bad-karma.net/soldiers-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

[JamWarrior]

Looking at the stat line there is a difference between thief and a Thug but not much.  does the Thief have any special abilities? What is the value of a Treasure hunter?  or a Tracker? 

I don't see a reason (other than flavor) to take anything but the toughest, best armored soldiers you can afford.  The only the Apothecary seem to stand out as having any special use beyond combat power

Carrying a shield gives you more armour, but reduces your fighting ability compared to some with 2 weapons or a 2-hander.

Having heavy armour gives you more survivability, but slows you right down.

They all have their niche, though below 50GP that niche is probably being cheap and expendable.

Don't under estimate the strength of the movement stat.  It's all about getting to that loot first and getting it off the board!

[Bodvoc]

Whilst some soldiers could remain exactly as they are (war hound, thug, crossbowman, archer), some soldiers could have simple abilities. For instance...

Treasure Hunter: can pick up treasure as a free action.
Thief: can never fall.
Knight: may reroll any combat dice throw of 4 or less.
Templar: may rethrow a failed Will roll once per game.

Any other ideas?

[Philhelm]

Whilst some soldiers could remain exactly as they are (war hound, thug, crossbowman, archer), some soldiers could have simple abilities. For instance...

Treasure Hunter: can pick up treasure as a free action.
Thief: can never fall.
Knight: may reroll any combat dice throw of 4 or less.
Templar: may rethrow a failed Will roll once per game.

Any other ideas?

Barbarian:  May make a second attack action on a natural Fight roll of 20.
Ranger:  Ignores rough ground.
Thief:  May climb without movement penalty.
Treasure Hunter:  May move at full speed while carrying treasure.
Marksman:  On a roll of 18, may reload as a free action.
Apothecary:  May restore one health point to self or friendly model at touch range.

[Bodvoc]

Nice ideas, I especially like the Ranger and Apothecary ones. Anyone any more?

[Daniel36]

I think it is wonderful how simple these special rules are. They are not overly complicated, yet fit their characters really nicely!

[Jiron]

I disagree. All the soldiers have their tactical use. For example, I play very mobile warband. Only one heavy hitter (barbarian) is less then M7 which means, I am usually first at the treasure. If not, my treasure hunters are quite able to take some less armored opponents. My tactics is get there fast and get out before opponent's heavy hitters push me back.
Frostgrave is plenty about mobility. The Knight can take some punishment but still he is 3" shorter at full move.
Adding more complexity will not make it better. It will just make it more complex and make you think more of what you can do then what you want to do.
Just my opinion.

[Bodvoc]

Jiron,
you are quite right when you say that Frostgrave is a good, fun and simple game. In many ways I was very glad it is such a simple game, I was just trying to add a quick and easy to remember rule to some of the soldier types to add a bit of variety. Also once your treasure hunter has picked up some treasure, he has to move at half speed so maybe a knight could catch him afterall!

[Commander Roj]

Jiron,
you are quite right when you say that Frostgrave is a good, fun and simple game. In many ways I was very glad it is such a simple game, I was just trying to add a quick and easy to remember rule to some of the soldier types to add a bit of variety. Also once your treasure hunter has picked up some treasure, he has to move at half speed so maybe a knight could catch him afterall!

I agree in principle with all the comments made, but I also wondered about the differentiation between the soldiers, albeit without having played yet (figures in the post). I am thinking that if speed is the key, then the game is broken, as it just becomes a race. There needs to be balance, whether that is in the game now or needs to be added eventually.

[pulpgoblin]

I agree in principle with all the comments made, but I also wondered about the differentiation between the soldiers, albeit without having played yet (figures in the post). I am thinking that if speed is the key, then the game is broken, as it just becomes a race. There needs to be balance, whether that is in the game now or needs to be added eventually.

Not had chance to play yet, either, but have all the stuff, so soooooooon...

If all players ignore each other and just run for the treasure, then sure, the one with the most move 7's is like as not to win.

But archers are going to shoot, wizards are going to fling spells, random creatures are going to mess with someones day.  Its going to get interesting pretty much as soon as two different warbands have LoS to each other, from reading other peoples play reports.

I'm with Jiron, and others, who say that the soldiers are differentiated in ways more subtle than special abilities.  Of course, for all that that is worth given I'm just armchair wizarding until I actually get some games played  

And, of course, no group of players should be afraid to add or subtract things that work, or not, for them.

[Bodvoc]

I have only played once (hope to get second game in on Tuesday), but found that various skeletons and other wandering creatures prevented the game from becoming just a race for treasure. Also spells were great fun. One of my friends soldiers that had a piece of treasure was 'pushed' about 14", right to the edge of the board, he picked himself up, despite suffering a few pts of damage and ran off board in his next turn.
My aim with this thread was to try and add a bit of flavour to some of the soldier types with a few simple and easy to remember rules. As these will be 'house' rules, people are free to use as they see fit, or not use them at all.

[Philhelm]

If all players ignore each other and just run for the treasure, then sure, the one with the most move 7's is like as not to win.

But archers are going to shoot, wizards are going to fling spells, random creatures are going to mess with someones day.  Its going to get interesting pretty much as soon as two different warbands have LoS to each other, from reading other peoples play reports.

I've played my first two games over the weekend.  The first game was played within a 4' x 4' area; we wanted a quicker second game, so played the recommended size of 3' x 3'.  I think that it was clear that the size of the game area makes a HUGE difference.  Treasure tokens must be placed at least 9" from the board edge, so even placing all tokens at the minimum range would bring both players within 18" with the 3' x 3' table, as opposed to 30" with the 4' x 4' table.  During the second game, we were gunning each other on turn one, and through some lucky dice rolls, my opponent managed to take out half of my group by turn three.

Any stat disparity isn't all that huge due to the D20 variance, but it certainly makes a difference.  Even casting the spell, Shield, for +2 armor, often made a difference, and the fight value certainly help in melee or to avoid ranged attacks.

[Commander Roj]

I agree in principle with all the comments made, but I also wondered about the differentiation between the soldiers, albeit without having played yet (figures in the post). I am thinking that if speed is the key, then the game is broken, as it just becomes a race. There needs to be balance, whether that is in the game now or needs to be added eventually.

When I said this I should have emphasised the IF. A few months of play will make it clear whether there is depth to the choices. I believe those choices are expanded by the prospective supplement too.

[Ddogwood]

I've played my first two games over the weekend.  The first game was played within a 4' x 4' area; we wanted a quicker second game, so played the recommended size of 3' x 3'.  I think that it was clear that the size of the game area makes a HUGE difference.  Treasure tokens must be placed at least 9" from the board edge, so even placing all tokens at the minimum range would bring both players within 18" with the 3' x 3' table, as opposed to 30" with the 4' x 4' table.  During the second game, we were gunning each other on turn one, and through some lucky dice rolls, my opponent managed to take out half of my group by turn three.

It's easy to forget just how much difference there is between table sizes. 3'x3' is more than double the size of 2'x2', and 4'x4' is nearly double the size of 3'x3'.

For a quick game, though, it might be fun to use a 2'x2' table, with a maximum of 5 warband members plus an apprentice (only). Put 1 treasure token per player plus one in the exact middle of the table and have at 'er.